Links to Awesome

Monday, August 31, 2009

Bending the flag code :Upon the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, the flag codes of the United States Flag has been bent for political reasons. As the flag code requires that the flag be flown at half-staff on the day that a member of the United States Congress dies, and the day afterwards. The only exception is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the Speaker is third in line to the office of President.

Procedure was broken to fit political bends of the death of Senator Kennedy. As instead of following the normal protocol of the American flag at half-staff for two days, Obama used another power in the flag code to issue an proclamation to fly the flag at half-staff, to politically & specially favor Kennedy, a fellow liberal. When the process for a Senator or Congressman is already defined, he instead used the power of Presidential proclamation which is attended for events or deaths which do not fall under the current guidelines.

Disrespecting Republicans :CNN is known for being a liberal news network, however, they are not as crazed as the fools on MSNBC, although perhaps worse, because some normal Americans actually watch their network. Anyway, the daughter of Andy Rooney was on CNN, and made this comment in regards to whether or not a Republican would receive the same treatment as Kennedy has, she commented "Well I don't think there's anybody like Ted Kennedy. I don't know what Republican senator would have deserved it frankly. I was trying to think, any, even any living president I don't think at this point would get the kind of attention. Which one? If George Bush one or two died tomorrow, I'm not sure they would get the same kind of accolades."

Given the fact no-one should have received this kind of media treatment, unless they are a passed President, I find this answer disturbing. As she pretty much said that no Republicans deserve any accolades for their service to this Nation if they happened to die tomorrow. How about Senator McCain? A war hero. Senator Bunning? President Bush?

Then again we have to look at the past, as Senator Helms received far less coverage then Kennedy's passing, and even the obituary articles in the New York Times we're ideologically pointed. Also, when President Ford passed along, I do not remember wall to wall media coverage either.

In conclusion, I believe we can learn one thing from liberal commentators & Presidents, everything is based on ideology, even the way the flag code operates is based on their ideology, and disrespecting Republicans.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Well, it's something that's been on my mind for years, but I'm so glad to see it actually confirmed in a newspaper. From the New York Times we find out that Jon Stewart fans are a bunch of egotistical self-righteous buffoons... or at least one-fifth of them.

According to 'secret media research' done by the geniuses at Comedy Central, at least twenty percent of all of the viewers of The Daily Show or the Colbert Report believe that people think they're cool for doing so. (We'll leave Stephen Colbert out of this because he's actually funny.)

That's right, they think that other people think they're cool for not actually doing anything but sitting there, mouths agape. There's a clinical term for this: college douchebags.

And you know what else drives up the Daily Show's ratings? The fact that it's seen as cool to watch the show, even though it's not funny. True, many college students and pseudo-hippies don't get the material, but if they laugh hard they can belong to something. Besides, they can be persuaded to vote-- even though they're clueless. You know, the best type of voters.

The problem is that many if not most of these viewers then do not watch any actual news because they've already 'been informed' by twenty seconds of a CNN clip that Stewart followed with a frowny face. They believe that since they're now endowed with almighty suave from watching Comedy Central, they can go up to people and shout at them if they don't choke down the Democratic line.

The study asked... ultimately, how important the shows and hosts are in their lives. Seriously, if a stiff like Jon Stewart is that important in your life, you should join a cult.

Politicians are famous for making promises they know they can't keep. Politicians are known for playing up small things into political distractions. Politicians often see themselves as the one person who can fix a broken world.

And I have news for you: Barack Obama is a politician. But he not just any politician. He is a political coward. Just as Keith Olbermann accused President Bush of using national security for political gain, President Obama is doing it fervently and transparently.

On issue after issue he has not shown backbone to debate his rivals and instead boils down his words into specious, nuanced attacks.

Obama v. Hillary

Take a look at the 2008 Democratic primaries. When Hillary pulled an upset in New Hampshire, the game had to change. So rather than debating Hillary on a health plan and showing how his might help working Americans, the debate devolved into pure phoniness.

Rumblings began that former President Clinton was a racist-- for stating that Obama didn't actually have a record to stand on. Racial undertones were played upon, even making it out in the open, delivering South Carolina to Obama. Rather than debate Hillary on national security, Obama simply changed to a simpler message, more easily digestible to young people and hard core leftists: Hillary was Bush's stooge for voting for the Iraq War. Not because Hillary looked at classified evidence or thought that Saddam was a threat. Nope. She might as well have had stock in Halliburton.

2008 General Election

After losing the popular vote in the Democratic primaries, but still winning the nomination (why is it acceptable for Obama, not the demon Bush?) Obama faced off against possibly the most bipartisan member of Congress. But his campaign was running low on steam and had to boil the race down to a couple of factors:

McCain's a stooge of Bush. Sound familiar? It was just too easy to push this line again, especially with so many of the under-30 crowd thinking that liking Bush was not avant-garde. Take a look at a key passage from his DNC speech:

John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time?

Translation: George W. Bush is dumb. McCain likes Bush. Do you really want to be dumb too?

Talk about a sophomoric argument.

And when McCain chose former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, the Obama team was knocked off message. She was young, popular, and inexperienced. Even though Obama had less executive experience, the bell rung that she must have no experience, so she's not qualified!

However, the strongest message that Team Obama and pop culture sent out was that-- Sarah Palin is dumb. Not that her policy choices were poor because of xyz, but no, she's dumb. She goes to a church where they say wacky things. Obama would have never done that. But in the end, the message was not to debate, but to belittle.

McCain challenged Obama to ten town hall debates. Obama realized that the more that he spoke without a TelePrompter, the dumber he sounded. So Team Obama declined. Who wanted to talk about policy, anyway? It's just much easier to promise Americans in a recession hope and change instead of a job.

Barack Obama depends on charisma and a few catchphrases to make up for a lack of political intelligence and backbone. Rather than actually debate issues and talk about specific points, he instead brings forward broad generalizations and belittles his opponents. He also relies on smooth deceptions from pop culture to keep the kids thinking he's cool. Kinda makes you wonder how he got elected.

I'll try to put up Part Two soon enough. If you like this post, please email it or share it or feel free to use it.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Sunday, August 23, 2009

President Obama has offered the the American people a lemon when it comes to the health care plan. His plan is pushing us towards nationalized medicine and is helping to balloon the deficit. I'm not even going to mention fetal reprocessing, which is so bad that even liberals can't defend it.

But let's take a look at other terrible options offered in the so-called health care reform package. Think of the idea for the public option. Not only will it create billions in new entitlements, but it will also help destroy current insurance. But the good news is that it's so poor that it looks like it might be dropped from the whole debate.

And sure that Obama says that illegals will not get free insurance though his plan. But take a look at what he really said. If an illegal comes into a hospital and needs treatment without money or insurance, they will have the bill picked up by Uncle Sam.

And even CBS News is now admitting that the health care plan will explode our deficit and cost us billions and billions of dollars. Obama's plan is a terrible fiscal idea.

But let's see the results ten years down the road. Many might lose quality care and we might owe $10 trillion on the health care plan. Inflation could be massive and unemployment may rise. What could we be thinking?

While following a link from LGF, I was able to get to the official North Korean tourism webpage. Now I know that you're thinking, "Why does North Korea need a tourism page? Doesn't everyone already know it's a workers' paradise?" But you can still see the awesome on their page.

While on the site, I noticed that there is an upcoming trip for those interested in visiting the DPRK-- except for those with American passports. I also read the indisputable fact that the South wants to reunite with the North, but a pesky 'wall built by the Americans' and 40,000 US troops keep it from happening.

This is not to mention North Korea's booming export business. Did you know that the North has a car company called Peace Motors? Seriously. And on that list there was not one mention of nuclear or rocket technology. What a shame.

And naturally, to show how great it is, they also show a picture from one of their sweatshops! Funny, though... I didn't see any pictures of people eating-- although North Korea must have a bitchin' ping-pong team.

And if you need some tunes for your Ipod, feel free to listen to all of the Stalinist anthems your little capitalist, baby-killer heart desires.

Also included are biographies of Kim Jong-Il and his father, the late deity Kim Il-Sung. Maybe Kim is just ronery vis a vis Team America.

That is the message of the day to Senator Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, in regards to his not-to-distant future. The Mason-Dixon polling & research company has released several opinion polls from the state of Nevada, in regards to the United States Senate election in 2010. The news is great for Republicans, miserable for the Democratic Senator, and excellent for the American people.

If Republican real estate professional Danny Tarkanian challenges Senator Reid, Tarkanian would win by 11% points, or by a 49-38% margin.

If Republican state Chairwoman Sue Lowden challenges Senator Reid, Lowden would win by 5% points, or by a 45-40% margin.

If Republican Congressman Dean Heller challenges Senator Reid in the upcoming election, he would win by 10% points, or by a 50-40% margin. Congressman Heller has already stated that he would not seek the United States Senate position.

If Republicans Danny Tarkanian & Sue Lowden we're to face off in a Republican primary, Tarkanian would win by a 19% margin, however 47% of Republican voters are undecided as of now. Whomever the Republican candidate is, they have a good shot at defeating the longtime Senator, who could follow in the steps of former Democratic Senate leader, Tom Daschle, who was kicked out of office in South Dakota by Republican Senator, John Thune.

Overall, Reid's approval rating is just 37%, with 50% of the voters in Nevada disapproving of Reid, President Obama would not bring much help to Reid's campaign, as his approval is just 44%, with 45% of the Nevada voters disapproving of Obama as well.

What does this mean for the Republican party in Nevada? It means that the leader of the United States Senate, is in deep trouble by wide margins, even against Republicans who have ruled out their intention to seek the Republican nomination. It also shows that liberalism does not fly well in the state of Nevada, which Senator Reid & Obama are followers of. It also proves that the Republican revolution of 2010, is just around the corner.

Election day 2010 might be 14 months away, however when you are trailing to three seperate candidates, by 5% points or more, who are all more Conservative then you are, in a historically Libertarian leaning state, you are in deep trouble. Reid's goal of raising 25 million dollars for this campaign might be possible, however I really do not believe it will make a difference. Voters are sick and tired of him, and they want Conservative change.

Side note : Considering Obama won Nevada by about 100,000 votes (by a 55-42 margin, and he not only is approved by 44%, and disapproved by 45%), this should also raise some eyebrows with possible Republican candidates for the office of President in 2012. Senator Ensign also has bad numbers (30% approval, 37% disapproval), due to an affair, however the disapproval numbers for Harry Reid are actually 13% worse then the Senator who has committed a scandal. Perhaps the scandal of pushing through a liberal agenda, against the will of the American people, is worse then an affair in these days? Who knows.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

I am a devout Conservative Republican, however I must ask, what the hell is wrong with the Republican party chairman's in the 23rd congressional district? First, they nominate a far-left Republican as the nominee for the special election to fill Congressman McHugh's seat, whenever he is approved by the Senate, second, they refuse to reconsider when Conservative Republican Doug Hoffman launches his campaign, last and not least, when Hoffman suggests holding a debate between Scozzafava & Hoffman, they pretty much told him to go to hell.

Doug Hoffman is a Conservative to the bone, a successful businessman, a Republican loyal, however there is a time when you have to stand up, and say enough. We need Conservative candidates, we need someone who reflects the views of the 23rd congressional district, we are sick and tired of wishy-washy Republicans.

As are the voters of the 23rd congressional district, according to very early polling data. As the Adirondack Daily Enterprise has a poll out on their website, which largely covers the 23rd congressional district, asking whom they support in the upcoming special election, whenever it occurs.

56% - Doug Hoffman.23% - Dede Scozzafava.21% - Bill Owens.

Be in mind, this is an Internet poll, which can be over polled with Hoffman supporters, however I suspect this is the true feelings of the voters in the 23rd congressional district, as while McHugh is a leftist Republican,he is a core Conservative compared to Owens & Scozzafava, and has never received the endorsement of the ACORN backed Working Families party like Scozzafava has received (during an Assembly race a few years back). Scozzafava has also received the endorsement of the pandering pandas - http://pandasfordede.blogspot.com/ .

It is enough! We need Conservatism in Washington D.C., this is just not about the ways Dede believes in social Conservatism, it is about her connections to labor & ACORN, it is about having only a 15% Conservative rating, while the Republican in my district has a 75% rating, and the Democrat leader has a 10% rating. This is about the soul of the Republican party, are we going to be principled Conservatives, or a pandering liberal who has sucked up to all parties, even the most radical.

Friday, August 21, 2009

I think we all should have expected it to happen sooner or later, the official I am sorry I voted for Obama website has been launched. The website has been launched for Obama supporters, and those that know of Obama supporters, who now deeply regret the Presidential choice they made in the 2008 election.

Some of the funny, yet sad statements from former Obama supporters, includes:

"I want to apologize to the country. America, please forgive me.

I love my country. I wanted US to heal from our wounds and thrive again. I thought Obama could make it. Instead, it has become a nightmare. I’ll always regret dearly to have voted for him.

America, I have involuntarily contributed to your demise. The great country that our Founding Father created and our forefathers built over the span of 2 centuries lays now mortally wounded by the yoke of Communism.

We will have to pack our things again and resettle somewhere else. The American dream will live on … but not in America. "

"Both my daughters along with the husband of one have apologized to my wife and I for voting for Obama. They considered themselves Independents and had voted for Ron Paul in the GOP Primary, but could not stand the old fuddy-duddy McCain...and so went with the appeal of "change and hope" without realizing what Obama was really about."

"I voted for Obama in California. I encouraged all my friends and neighbors to do the same. Why? Well, I have an extended African American family by marriage, and I thought it would be empowering for my wonderful nephews to see a black President. I know…it's not a great method for voting. Also, I was beguiled by the "hope and change" rhetoric. I am a two-time Ross Perot voter, and I really REALLY wanted to find that post-partisan, post-racial American era.

However, six short months later, it is clear that the contents of the Obama presidential box do not match what was on the two-year Obama campaign label.

I have been betrayed. And I won't vote for him again."

"One of my son's teachers voted for Obama, and had been vocal in his support of Obama prior to the election. When my son saw him at the start of the new school year, the teacher admitted to having made "a big mistake in judgment" and regrets his previous thinking. He's even considering formally changing parties. "

- http://www.iamsorryivotedforobama.com/ If you feel regrets, or if you know someone who is feeling regrets, please do share...as the website has a goal of 4,000,000 former Obama voters expressing their remorse, either through statement, or silent petition.

Former Pennsylvania Governor, Republican Tom Ridge, has released a book in where he alleges that the Bush administration, or Bush himself, pushed for the terror level to be raised before the election, to push him into victory. Over 33,000 google hits register when "Bush raised terror level to win election" is punched into the search engine. Obviously, this myth has been around for a long time.

How about we debunk it. Looking at why Bush won the election, and how the terror level had nothing to do with it.

1.Bush won in Ohio, not because of rigged voting machines, but because Ohio was voting on a Constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in that state, and Bush supported/supports a Federal Constitution ban on all homosexual marriage, that played well for Bush in the 2004 election, with "social Conservative Democrats".

2.The terror level was raised on August 1st (May I also add, that it was raised on August 1st, three months before election day, not on the eve of election day, but three months before hand) - November 10th to the "orange" threat level, because of intelligence pointing to a possible car bomb or attack on specific buildings in New York City & Washington D.C., this level would have been raised/remained high anyway, given the fact Osama Bin Laden released a tape right before the United States election, and flashbacks to Spain were probably in the minds of the folks at the Department of Homeland Security.

3.I would also question the motives of Tom Ridge as well, as he has been out of political power for almost four years now, considering the fact he was in public or government office for over two decades straight, and he was even talked about being the Vice President selection of John McCain, and a possible Senate candidate against Arlen Specter, I suspect he is attempting to gain attention for a possible run in the future. What better way to get the liberals on your side, then to release a book full of crap, based on President Bush.

The terror level was raised for real reasons, and the video tapes released by al Qaeda's top two terrorists right before the election, and the horrific political ploy by John Kerry (as documented by legal Insurrection) probably led to the 2004 Presidential victory for George Bush, including the social conservative vote in Ohio.

At the start of the year, Democrats were convinced they’d finally cracked the code.

They’d spent years testing and refining their message on health care reform. They had a popular president to push the effort, and Democratic majorities in Congress to support it. The public seemed receptive to big changes.

Eight months later, the effort is in serious trouble. The White House is almost back to Square One, struggling to break through with a message that has undergone several major course-corrections and on the defensive against wild charges that caught Democrats off-guard.

What went wrong? Bearing the brunt of some of the criticism is Obama himself – once viewed as a sure-fire closer, now facing grumbling on the left for letting critical months slip by without a constant, coherent and consistent argument. Think “change” and “hope” from the campaign, catchwords that Obama practically trademarked. In this fight, his key messages have shifted, from fixing health care to fix the economy, to “stability and security” for people who already have insurance.

And this week, he returned to an argument Democratic strategists said shouldn't be part of the pitch this year – trying to convince Americans they have a “moral obligation” to help people without insurance, a discredited argument from the reform effort under President Bill Clinton.

“I don’t think the messaging has been very clear,” said Celinda Lake, a leading Democratic pollster on health care. But more so, she added, “the campaign to disseminate the messaging has not been as relentless and organized as it needs to be.”

Said Drew Altman of the Kaiser Family Foundation, “The whole debate drifted in a direction that was disconnected from the core concerns of the American people.”

Democratic strategists see signs of hope in Obama’s recent moves, by focusing on insurance reforms that can provide more security for middle-class voters who are already insured.

Now they want to Obama to do more: Pick one message and stick with it. Steer the Democratic fight over the public insurance option out of the headlines and into the background. Stay above the fray and let his top aides fight the point-by-point policy battles.

In other words, return to being the inspiration leader that Democrats rallied around in the campaign, these strategists said.

“The president does need to get back on the high ground as the moral compass of why reform needs to happen and not spend much time down in the weeds arguing points of policy,” said Anne Kim, economic program director at Third Way, a centrist policy and strategy group that has produced messaging memos on health care. “His job is to tell people health care reform will remove a tremendous burden.”

Democrats fret that Obama has ceded the summer to critics who packed town halls to shout at lawmakers – and whose arguments seem to be taking hold among the public at large.

A new NBC News polls found Obama’s approval rating and voter support for health reform was largely unchanged from a month ago. But nearly half of all voters believe some of the “myths” being spread through the Internet and amplified by Republicans, including that the plan includes coverage for illegal immigrants and amounts to big-government takeover of health care.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged this week that the administration has stumbled on messaging.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House deputy communications director, said the president isn’t discouraged by the ups and downs of the debate.

“This was never was going to be easy, if it was, it wouldn’t have happened decades ago,” Pfeiffer said. “While the pundit class in this town loves to pick winners and losers on a daily basis in concert with the cable news cycle, the fact is that we have made unprecedented progress toward enacting health reform and are confident on success in the long run.”

But there have been zigs and zags through the past eight months – a far cry from Democratic dreams of one consistent, poll-tested message that would resonate with voters start to finish.

Obama started in the spring with the “experts agenda,” as Altman put it. He talked about implementing health information technology, “bending the cost curve” on health spending, reforming the health care delivery system and funneling more federal dollars into research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments and procedures.

Each element has been hailed by Republican and Democratic policy experts, but they did little to connect with the average person struggling to pay health care bills, Altman said.

When White House senior adviser David Axelrod briefed Senate Democrats in May, there was not a major emphasis on the insurance reforms that would come to dominate the White House messaging later in the summer.

Obama also focused heavily through the spring on the macroeconomic arguments for overhauling the health care system. The economy had yet to show signs of recovery, so talking about the impact of reforming health care on the economy as a whole may have fit the moment.

It was a solid pitch for his economy agenda, “but not for the health plan,” Lake said. “People want to know how it will affect them.”

Compounding the problem through June was the fact that the House and the Senate blew their deadlines for producing bills. The five committees working on health care had initially planned to release legislation right after the Memorial Day recess. But it wasn’t until mid-July that the committees began producing bills. And even then, the main player, the Senate Finance Committee, was nowhere close to finishing its legislation – and is still plodding along.

“We are in the most difficult period of messaging,” Lake said. “We don’t have a plan we are pointing to with specifics that would garner support.”

Democrats were also still looking for a villain. With all of the major industry players still talking with the White House, it was difficult to find one, Democratic strategists said.

By late July, Obama found one – the insurance industry – as he made another shift. This time, he emphasized reforms to the insurance market, which Axelrod urged senators to describe as “consumer protections.”

Democrats had long talked about the need to focus not on expanding coverage on the 47 million uninsured, but rather the insured, who make 85 percent of voters in an election year, Lake said.

Strategists were relieved to hear Obama start talking about “health insurance reform,” rather than “health care reform.” They liked the fresh attention to promising a more stable and secure existence for middle class voters who are worried about losing their coverage or being unable to afford it.

Lawmakers had hoped to hammer home this message during the August recess, but lost ground amid the spate of angry town halls and an avalanche of claims – which have been discredited – that Obama wants to cover illegal immigrants, establish “death panels,” and guarantee federal funding for abortions.“In recent days, we have spent additional time correcting the absolute falsehoods about reform, which is a situation aided and abetted by many in the media,” a White House official said.

And this week, Obama returned to making a moral argument to provide insurance for all Americans during a call with faith leaders, a message Democratic strategists said they thought had been dismissed as a smart messaging strategy.

“It is not perfectly clear there is one frame targeted at the insured middle class,” Kim said. “If the message architecture were rock solid then the attack from the right wouldn’t have as much resonance.”

Democrats acknowledge they were lulled into complacency. One party official cited a largely under-the-radar dust up in February when Betsy McCaughey, the former New York lieutenant governor who played an influential role in torpedoing the Clinton reform effort, wrote an op-ed for Bloomberg News in February that Obama planned to ration health care. She cited a provision in the stimulus bill to spend $1 billion on comparative effectiveness research.

Reform advocates thought they won the fight when the money stayed in the stimulus bill, and the issue received only scant attention in the mainstream media.

Then, in May, Republican strategist Frank Luntz acknowledged in a messaging memo to his party that they shouldn’t argue against the need for reform. If even Luntz drew this conclusion from polling, then Democrats thought they were in good shape.

“We weren’t prepared for the level of passion coming from the other side because all signs indicated a greater national consensus on reform,” Kim said. “Luntz said don’t deny the need for health care reform. That lulled us into a sense of complacency – ‘Well, oh, the Republicans can’t say no, the impetus is too strong.’ The forces of ‘no’ were stronger than we thought.”

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Scottish officials are in stitches over what has been called "one of the greatest ironic jokes in all of human history." Public outrage was pouring in from around the world over the decision by a high court to release the Lockerbie bomber,Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. Megrahi was convicted of masterminding the 1988 airline bombing which killed over 200 people.

It was revealed Thursday that as the bomber was released due to "compassionate" grounds, his flight mysteriously disappeared off of radar. Scottish officials tell news organizations that Megrahi was the only passenger on the flight, which was remotely controlled.

"What we imagine is that about halfway through the flight, Megrahi realized that he was the only one on board. As he ran to the cockpit, all he saw was a plastic blow-up doll, vis-a-vis Airplane! Scared shitless by this point, he likely looked out his window to see his homeland Libya coming into sight.

"As this happened, klaxons began blaring and red lights flashed in his face. The in-flight movie display then flashed "Suck it, terrorist douche" and the plane exploded. We can only hope that this was within visible range of his family who was waiting for him to arrive."

Reactions to this revelation have been overwhelmingly positive. Called "better than an April fool's joke" by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the tape of the explosion will be placed on next week's Britain's Funniest Home Videos.

Even Libyan dictator Muommar Qaddafi said that the irony was "spot on" and that this was "one of the best civilian plane explosions I've ever seen." When reminded that Megrahi was a Libyan citizen, Qaddafi stated, "He was a terrorist. Why wouldn't he expect to be a suicide bomber?"

Megrahi's death will not be mourned by many, although his son Ahmed said, "At least he died the way he lived."

Senator Ted Kennedy is asking for the Massachusetts legislature to change the process from a special election to fill the United States Senate seat, to an appointment by the Governor of Massachusetts, he claims so the Democrats will not lose a vote, I personally believe it is so another Kennedy will be swept into power.

I personally believe in the original Constitution way of selecting Senators, that the state legislatures & governors control the process, as the United States Senate is suppose to be the direct representative of the states, and the indirect representative of the people. However, Kennedy is doing this for complete political purpose, and he is attempting to use his political capita to literally change the way United States Senators are appointed in case of death, resignation, etc.

Lets face it, the only nation in the entire world that 100% supports Israel, other than Israel of course, is the United States of America. Very shocking indeed; better yet lets ask this question - how many other nations are opposed to radical Islam, and Islam taking over their nation and enforcing Islamic laws, or 'Sharia,' which are barbaric at the least.

I really cannot think of many of them either...I know in a few nations there are some brave souls who have stood up against radical Islam, such as France with their first ever pro-American President, and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands.

A man who has been fighting against radical Islam, and even Islam in general for the past several years, he sees the dangers involved with the radical Islamic beliefs. Wilders is best known for his movie, which he created about Islam in the Netherlands, Fitna, about how radical terrorists are using lines from the Qur'an to justify their evil terrorist acts, and wanting to spread Islam all through out the world.

While the movie has been showcased on American shows such as Glenn Beck, the movie has been attacked viciously across Europe, and has led to Geert Wilders being banned from England because of his views (just like Michael Savage).

Wilders has also noted how Israel is the first line of defense against radical Islam for the western world. Not only that, but because of major differences between himself and his original party, Wilders has formed his own political party, which is the most popular in the Netherlands. Wilders personal principles also closely reflects those in American Conservative circles.

How about the Nation of Sweden? Are they pro-Israel? I highly doubt it, especially since their nation has been overrun in the past years by Islam, and has become a hot spot for anti-Israeli views. Just think about the article, written in a radical left leaning newspaper, "Our sons are used as involuntary organ donors, relatives of Khaled from Nablus said to me, as did the mother of Raed from Jenin as well as the uncles of Machmod and Nafes from Gaza, who all had disappeared for a few days and returned by night, dead and autopsied."

The Israeli foreign minister was pissed beyond belief, "Whispers in the dark. Anonymous sources. Rumors. That is all it takes. After all we all know what they [the Jews] are like, don't we: inhuman, hardened. Capable of anything," the opinion piece says. "Now all that remains is the defense, equally predictable: 'Anti-Semitism' No, no, just criticism of Israel."

The Foreign Ministry reacted angrily on Tuesday to the report. Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor said the newspaper's decision to publish the story is "a mark of disgrace" for the Swedish press. "

Lets face it America, we have few allies when it comes to supporting Israel, and even our own government is now anti-Israel on almost every issue. It appears we might have a few more allies when it comes to fighting against radical Islam, however......they are in the minority.

Please note : I am not anti-Muslim, I am anti-radical Islam, which the United States is currently fighting against in Afghanistan & Iraq, this has nothing to do with religion in general (I am not opposed because I am a Christian, I am opposed to radical Islamists who hate Christians, and the free world), all to do with a radical version of the Muslim religion which has become the enemy of America. If you do not understand what I just said, you are an ignorant fool who has forgotten September 11th attacks.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

People in the Democratic party have to be smoking something, as many claim 'they are done with reaching across the political spectrum to Republicans.' My question: when did they start?

-The stimulus was rammed through without any GOP consideration.-Cap & Tax was pushed through, with an additional 300 pages added in the middle of the night.-The Democrats have ignored Republicans through out the health care debate, are looking at an unconstitutional procedure to pass the legislation in the Senate, and will not consider one Conservative opinion.

They complain that is time for the GOP to give some ground up. Principles mean a lot more then "reaching across the aisle, my friends", especially when that means passing an unconstitutional measure, an anti-capitalistic, anti-freedom, anti-personal responsibility, anti-American, and anti-common sense legislation. This will cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, perhaps trillions, cause tens of millions to lose their current health insurance, destroy the greatest health care system in the world, and give more control of our lives to the federal government. Not to mention increase tax rates to near 60% in some spots across the Nation.

The Democratic party does not want to compromise; in consideration of this legislation, that is not even practical, given every single measure goes against Conservative principles in one fashion or another. They want to ram it down our throats, and have control over more & more Americans.

So Democrats, next time you claim you were 'working with the GOP,' go tell it to your crazies and leave us alone.

First, let me preface this with a statement. I understand the importance in counter-insurgency warfare to appear to be both merciful and tough. I understand that sometimes you have to release people who may have attacked you and re-integrate them back into a peaceful, productive society.

But still, everyone has their limits.

And today, when savage terrorists massacred at least 70 Iraqis, 300 veteran terrorists are set to be released. So are these simply poor farmers who were arrested wrongly? No. Were they people who just launched a rocket or placed a roadside bomb because they needed to feed their family? Probably not.

Instead, they are members of the Iranian-funded Asaib al Haq, who not only have launched attacks on Allied and Iraqi forces, but who led uprisings last year. Fortunately their group was almost annihilated by Maliki's swift offensives.

So all's well with the decision? Not exactly:

"The last thing the Iraqis need right now is for the wholesale release of members of this group just when the Iraqi security forces are trying to learn to walk," one official told The Long War Journal. "I see no indication the Asaib al Haq [League of the Righteous] is sincere about reconciliation; US troops are still being attacked by these Iranian surrogates."

Also released are members of the Iranian Qods Force, who have been coordinating attacks in Iraq for years. For example, Mahmoud Farhadi is one of the three leaders of the Qods Force in Iraq. ... And he's being released.

And this is in conjunction with another decision made by the White House to not bomb terrorists when they are in the Air Force's sights. Great.

I don't know if any of us 'dumb' Republicans and conservatives can remember, but there was a large uproar regarding the United States giving no-contract bids to Halliburton, which just so happened to have been run by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Sounds fishy? Well, what was conveniently left out is that Cheney owned no stock in the company and that the company's gains wouldn't affect his income.

But what about Obama destroying the "culture of corruption" and making sure that special interests and lobbyists were not a part of the new Washington elite. Well, it appears that that rosy talk was just enough to get him elected. Now that he's in office, it doesn't seem as important.

Take chief adviser David Axelrod. A tough Chicago-type, Axelrod knows how to play hardball politically and financially.

Including landing a sweetheart deal between the White House and a company he just so happened to have been the head of. It also just so happened that Obama's campaign spent over $300 million last year with AKPD Message and Media in which Axelrod led and GMMB Campaign Group which just so happened to have Obama teammate Jim Margolis as a partner. During this time period might I add that Axelrod was the sole shareholder in AKPD!

I can see why you would want to have people you can trust involved in your public relations, but this is downright vulgar.

And now the two firms are profiting further from the Adminstration's health care push. True, Axelrod isn't involved with AKPD anymore, but that comes after his company made money hand over fist last year.

Most transparent administration? If Bush directly used campaign funds to give Halliburton $300 million while Cheney was still CEO, we'd never hear the end of it.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

WASHINGTON – Frustrated liberals have a question for President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn't it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What's the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we're making all the concessions?

A case in point:

Sen. Charles Grassley, a key Republican negotiator on health care, was on a winning streak as Congress recessed for August, having wrung important concessions from Democrats, including an agreement to back away from a government plan to compete with private insurers.

How did Grassley reciprocate? With an attack that struck Democrats as stunning and baseless. Grassley told an Iowa crowd he would not support a plan that "determines when you're going to pull the plug on Grandma." The remark echoed conservative activists who wrongly claim a House health care bill would require Medicare recipients to discuss their end-of-life plans with doctors.

For liberals supporting far-reaching changes to the nation's health care system, it was another sign that months of negotiations have been a one-way street. It's time to move on without Republicans, they say.

On Tuesday, liberals were fuming over Obama's recent remarks suggesting he might also yield on the federally run insurance option he's been promoting. Many saw it as a huge concession that could leave them with nothing more than watered-down insurance cooperatives.

But the Senate's second-ranking Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, dismissed even such co-ops as a "Trojan horse" leading to government control of health care.

Many liberals are fed up.

"It is clear that Republicans have decided 'no health care' is a victory for them," Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in an interview. "There is a point at which bipartisanship reaches a limit, and I would say it's reaching that limit."

The growing liberal unhappiness sets a difficult stage for Obama this fall. Political pragmatists want him to keep seeking a middle ground that will attract at least a few Republican lawmakers as well as moderate Democrats who could prove crucial to passage in the House and Senate. Even modest achievements, such as preventing insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing medical conditions, would allow Obama to claim a victory and perhaps try for more later, they say.

Liberal activists say there's no point in the Democrats winning the House, Senate and White House unless they use their clout to enact the major measures that Obama campaigned for — with or without some Republican support.

For now, Obama seems on the defensive. He spent valuable time this month knocking down claims that Democratic plans could lead to euthanasia of the elderly. And his chief spokesmen spent much of Monday and Tuesday insisting that Obama still supports a government-run health insurance option despite mixed signals from the administration.

On Saturday, Obama told a Colorado crowd, "The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it."

While liberals are discouraged, the endgame remains unclear. Some still hope that Obama and congressional Democratic leaders will use all their parliamentary powers — which could prove especially divisive in the Senate — to pass a far-reaching bill that would include a public option for health insurance and more palatable consumer costs for prescription drugs and other needs.

The pivotal decisions will be made this fall, with administration officials saying the debate cannot lapse into the midterm election year of 2010.

What seems clear is that the room for compromise between Republicans and Democrats is shriveling to almost nothing. Some Democrats found Kyl's remarks particularly galling. Even if Democrats manage to produce a health care bill that won't increase the federal deficit over 10 years, Kyl said, "that doesn't mean Republicans would support it."

And Grassley has said he's uninterested in a compromise that draws only three or so Senate Republicans' votes.

The continued outreach to Republicans, meanwhile, is testing Democrats' unity. This week, more than 50 House Democrats issued a letter saying: "Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable."

Some of them told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a conference call Tuesday that discussions with Republicans are pointless.

White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass played down the intraparty fuss, noting that it's far from clear how the final legislation will turn out. She said negotiations involving Obama have led drug manufacturers to agree to reduce costs for the nation's health care system by $80 billion over 10 years, while hospitals have agreed to an additional $155 billion.

Those concessions will carry weight with lawmakers as they "look at enacting reform that will lower costs and increase stability and security," Douglass said in an interview.

But such concessions cut several ways. Pharmaceutical industry leaders say the $80 billion agreement should end efforts to allow the government to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs used in Medicare and other programs.

Liberals say such price reductions are precisely the type of change Obama called for in his presidential campaign. And now, they say, is the time to turn those promises into reality.

MSNBC has been one of the main cheerleaders in the rise of Obama. It appears that the company behind the news station has taken the effort one step farther.

Despite paying Olbermann, Maddow, and Schultz, NBC now feels it necessary to assist the President's political future by selling merchandise slathered with his picture directly on their site. Maybe they need the extra money to pay off Olbermann's new salary.

So is this illegal? No. Is it completely misleading considering that NBC News wants to be 'impartial'? Absolutely. This is a gross smack in the face for anyone that wants to watch unbiased and non-snooty news.

Which brings us back to the original question. What if FoxNews was selling George W. Bush keychains and pictures and mousepads? It would have been 'exposed' as just another branch of the Republican 'hate machine.' Well, where are our lefty friends to call out this gross act of greed?

Jack Cafferty is a relic at CNN. Cynical and always willing to complain, Cafferty was frequently eager to criticize President Bush during his years in office. Barack Obama was different... Cafferty's stone heart appeared to pump again and the Senator-turned-President engendered a more positive attitude.

That appears to be changing slightly. It's not that I really take Cafferty that seriously (and neither should you) but it appears that his return to morose cynicism marks the first major defeat of the Obama Administration with the health care debacle.

The honeymoon period appears to have ended and the glib adoration of Obama by many is under reconsideration.

Just take Cafferty's statements and viewer responses yesterday as an example. Ramon from California writes:

It means President Obama is willing to sell out millions of his supporters so he can placate a handful of senators who are in bed with the insurance industry. For goodness sakes, can the Democrats ever win? I thought we did last November. This isn’t the change we voted for. It’s pathetic.

It is pathetic. More and more Americans appear to realize the depths of which they were duped last November and if even crotchety Cafferty sees, we may be making progress.

President Obama was elected with over 50% of the vote last year. However, it appears that his political rivals may be able to swipe that much of the television ratings.

With some of the shine leaving the Obama Administration, many who are skeptical are already looking at alternative messages. MSNBC and the New York Times have grown almost infamous in their pro-Obama rallying and the internet is still abuzz with pro-Obama sentiment.

Enter FoxNews. The right-leaning network is definitely an anomaly and its message seems to be striking a tone with many in middle America. Heck, if even the San Francisco Gate is recognizing the rating bonanza that Fox is benefiting from, it must be serious.

Fox's ratings are up double-digits so far this year and it appears more likely that this will continue. Just take a look at this comment from the article:

Even if outnumbered, opposing voices are more likely heard in Fox's prime-time than on MSNBC's. Fox has also largely ignored the more extreme Obama opponents who question whether the president was born in the United States.

This is actually a really good point. Fox has largely been ignoring the crazy "birthers" while MSNBC eagerly had on many who accused Bush of lying about the War in Iraq. In addition, even though O'Reilly isn't my favorite person, he can at least have on opposing viewpoints on his show. Keith Olberdouche has built a veritable echo chamber of slobbering "guests."

Sunday, August 16, 2009

What is the largest lie being spread around during the current health care debate? Is it that death panels will be in the legislation? Nope, the United States Senate confirmed them by removing that language from the Senate version (it still remains in the House version). Is it that socialist health care is dreadful for the people, in terms of economic & personal survival? Nope, as proven by the hundreds of thousands of foreigners (mostly from Canada, and the Italian Prime Minister) who flock away from socialized medicine, and come to the United States Capitalistic health care system every year.

Then it must be that lie that Obama supports single payer health care, no......... that is actually fact, as proven by numerous videos which show the President telling the truth about his beliefs in regards to health care to his flock, while lying to the American people about his intentions.

In fact, none of the above mentioned is a lie, as the White House and idiotic Congressional Democrats attempt to prove otherwise, which is impossible, and which is why they are losing the health care debate.

The largest lie comes from the liberal spectrum of American politics, as hundreds of left of center nonsense stream blogs have touted the lie that 20,000 Americans die a year because of rationing, this lie has grown to the lie that insurance companies have denied coverage for 20,000 Americans a year, because of lust of profits.....which makes no sense because more profits come when the patients remain alive longer.

Howabout we expose the lie, and actually showcase the truth for once.

The claim is that 20,000 Americans die a year because they have no insurance, or because they are under-insured (NOTE : I wonder what it will be like when the federal government runs it, and resources are cut down to the bare minimum), because they did not have the money to go visit the doctor, and never learned about the danger that awaited them. 1.Please define what under-insured is? Because if you can afford insurance, and you are under-insured (whatever the hell that means), you should be able to afford a 100 dollar doctor visit. 2.Considering the ultra poor have insurance already (through government run programs), these people have to be in between the government & private health care income range, and I am in that mold, if I needed to do a yearly or twice a year appointment to check up on my medical status, I could. But, I never do, because I don't want to.

Are these people rationed? No.

Who is to say that if they had the best health coverage in the world, they would then visit the doctor? Perhaps, they never visit the doctor on regular appointments, except when they are sick. A lot of people do that, including myself, and even when I am sick, I usually sleep & have chicken noodle soup, that would never change, health care insurance or not. What is the point of wasting time to hear what I have, when I already know I have the flu.

Rationed? No. Under-insured? No. Lazy? Appears to be.

I wonder how many people die a year, who have private health care insurance, and never visit the doctor on regular appointments. Then again, liberals would attempt to promote that as under-insured, when it is just laziness on the part of the patient.

Authors note : I admit, I am lazy when it comes to medical checkups, but it has nothing to do with costs, or medical insurance, or some other idiotic liberal lie. Want to lower the health insurance costs? 1.TORT Reform. 2.Get rid of all of the idiotic requirements for insurance companies to insure, such as hair transplants. 3.Allow Americans in any state to select their health insurance from any state. 4.Get the Government the hell out, let the Private sector run it without government involvement.

The 200th British soldier has died in Afghanistan, all of their service is deeply appreciated in the fighting for the western belief of freedom, and to defeat the enemy which has attacked both America & Britain brutally, however both of these superpowers have resented the tug of surrendering.

Like the liberal morons in America, every time we receive a new toll of those that have given their life for their Nation, for Freedom, and to defeat a world recognized foe, the British socialists once again drum up their supporters to demand surrender to the greatest evil since Imperial Japan and the Nazis.

We are in the middle of a tough fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, especially with all important elections upcoming, which should showcase why this war was worth fighting, not to mention we have defeated the Taliban pretty damn badly, however I realize we have a lot more to accomplish in the fight against the Taliban. We will need all of our allies, especially those that have been brutally attacked by radical Islam, such as American & Great Britain has.

We need to not be cowards like the Spain electorate & leadership, who in the face of a brutal attack against their Nation, which killed their people, the disgraces voted out the pro-war President, for some socialist fruitcake anti-war candidate. Spain has defined what they believe, when the going gets tough, Spain runs to surrender an intolerable evil.

However idiotic Spain is, I have found a man who disgraces his son who died fighting for Freedom in Afghanistan, who died fighting for revenge for what occurred not only in Great Britain, but what occurred to Britain's greatest ally, America.

"Graham Knight, whose son Ben was killed when a Royal Air Force Nimrod plane exploded over Afghanistan in 2006, said it was "time for an end to military action" in Afghanistan.

"We are ill-equipped and ill-advised," he said. "We should be getting the non-militant Taliban around the table and begin talks so we can embark on a withdrawal."

1.You never end Military action until you have 100% won.

2.How would you know this? Are you an Military expert? What the hell does that even mean in regards to fighting?

3.There is no non-militant taliban, you jackass, they all want to kill Americans & British citizens, because we love Freedom, and because we refuse to bow down to their islamic baloney in our Nations (America for now, Britain is slowly faltering).

4.You do not talk with an enemy which has killed thousands of your citizens, attacked your Nation, and has killed your soldiers. You defeat them, you beat them silly, you kill them

I pray to God, that Great Britain does not bail out on us like Spain, I also pray to God, that the idiotic Democrats don't bail out on the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan as well, they share the same feelings as Spain when the tough gets going.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

I know that public relations are a large part of any war effort, but this new attempt to lessen the image of American "war crimes" is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard yet from the Obama Administration.

According to some in the Defense Department, when the Air Force sees terrorist activities in the mountains of Afghanistan, instead of dropping bombs on them, we may just make a noise to scare them away!

I know that there's been a lot of hullabaloo about the United States "massacring" Afghan civilians, but this attempt will keep terrorists alive that will then turn around and attack Afghan civilians or ISAF troops.

No offense, but this plan sounds like a total crock. If we're serious about winning in Afghanistan, we need to send more troops and accelerate the training of local forces. If we're not even going to kill the enemy anymore, what are we doing?

Something that I saw on BBC that really pisses me off if that an unspecified amount of people who protested against the rigged 'elections' in Iran two months ago were apparently tortured to death by security forces. Even worse, both males and females who opposed the regime were systematically raped.

The opposition has claimed, and probably correctly, that at least 69 people have been killed by the Iranian government for protesting the 'election' results. In addition, over 100 political prisoners are being held and could be put to death.

Candidate and President Obama went out of his way to apologize that the United States waterboarded three terrorists. Yes, it's torture, but these people included an operations chief and the man who planned out the September 11th, 2001 attacks which killed almost 3,000 people. Quite frankly, if I was in a room with Khalid Mohammed, waterboarding would be the least of that fuckwit's worries.

Obama also tortuously blamed the United States for the Guantanamo Bay terrorist holding facility. For years the whining about 'torture' by the US reached a fevered pitch by many on the Left. Now that true torture, including murder, rape, and political prisoners, is occurring... where's Obama?

Is he on a flight to the Mideast to discuss with regional leaders the illegitimacy of the Iranian theocracy? No. Is he meeting with allies to discuss the nuclear weapons program? No. For a guy who supposedly stands against torture and for treating allies well, he's doing a really, really poor job of it.

Obama: get out a book and learn something about Iran. If I have to hear you say that the proud 'Arab' people of Iran.... and how it's all America's fault while innocent people are getting raped and tortured to death by terrorist fundamentalists, I think I'm going to vomit.

Friday, August 14, 2009

What is the American way? I would argue Freedom, I would argue fighting for what is right, I would argue that the United States Constitution; a document of rules for the government, and freedoms for the people is the American way.

Would you call the Second Amendment a part of the American way? Hell yes. The second amendment is present in America for many reasons, reasons that are just as valid now as they we're over 200 years ago, as the reasons & principles of Freedom never fade, never die, never are unpopular or become out of the mainstream.

Reasons :1.The American people have the right to.2.Being armed is a natural part of American life, from hunting for your food, to being a collector.3.To defend yourself not only from the forces of criminals, but to be the force against tyranny in America, as no tyranny can exist in a land whose people are armed.4.Because of the individual freedom guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Founders opinion :"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; " - Thomas Jefferson"W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. " - Richard Henry Lee.

"W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor... " - George Mason.

The Second Amendment guarantees both the right of the state militias & the individual American to be armed, for numerous reasons, one is to be the largest foolsafe against an all powerful, controlling, tyranny-full government, we must defend our precious liberty as much as our Founders had to then. And defending the second amendment, is the largest step to defend that liberty, once and for all.

Authors note : a special article on the Second Amendment march, or the "Million gunowners march" as I call it, will be appearing soon.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer made a big ruckus last week by describing health care protesters as "un-American." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called the protesters "evil-mongers." The President himself has allowed his Administration to track critics and call on ordinary citizens to report their neighbors. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is calling protests out of the mainstream.

What's wrong with this picture?

In 2002 and 2003, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, many on the Left sated that they were being called unpatriotic. Still, if you look back on that time period, then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher went out of his way to state that the protesters were excersizing their constitutional rights. president Bush reponded to his critics in a conciliatory tone, even meeting with Cindy Sheehan.

Many of the criticisms of the protests against the Iraq War was that the protesters didn't realize that many of their rights were determined by military action, not that these rights should be curtailed or silenced.

Still, now, the President and his political allies have regularly tried to paint their opponents as extremists. Reports of Nazi references and articles about increased militia activity are attempting to portray the average opponent of the health care plan (including perhaps some Blue Dog Democrats) as the ideological equivalent of Timothy McVeigh.

This demonization has been met with glee from the media. MSNBC, once so critical of President Bush's 'scare tactics' has taken a very harsh tone on these new protests.

The days are gone that city-clean Subarus carry that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Now, instead, the left is only attempting to protect the United States from a resurgence of the Klan, Neo-Nazis, and non-organic food eaters.

To call your political opponents un-American or unpatriotic while they are simply practicing the same rights you falsely stated that President Bush was curtailing is tactless and malevolent. To scream that they are extremists when they do not advocate violence or hatred is irresponsible and in itself 'fear-mongering.'

Political discourse is devolving as disagreeing with the President is slowly being perceived as hating America.

I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.

The environmental lobby is downright nutty out in California, as they have shut off the water wells for Farmers, all because of some idiotic fish. Congressman Devin Nunes (R) of the 21st congressional district in California has fought against this since it was enacted, pushing for legislation in Congress, which would turn the pumps back on, as with them off.....farms are drying up, a man made drought is occurring, and unemployment is through the roof.

"Of course, the lack of water south of the Delta is the direct result of pumping restrictions imposed by our government – a man-made drought or government-imposed drought is the most descriptive way to describe the crisis."

- Congressman Nunez, as he wrote on his Congressional blog (how many Congressmen have a blog?) on July 24th.

His legislation finally reached the House floor on July 23rd 2009, the results are sickening. 179 nays (the good vote in this case,176 Republicans, 3 Democrats), and with 249 yeas (the bad vote in this case, 248 Democrats, 1 Republican), five Representatives we're not present at the time of the vote.

249 Representatives voted against Farmers, voted against jobs, voted against American crops, and voted for some idiotic fish over the Citizens of the United States!

Please be minded, not ONE California Democrat voted for the legislation, and that one Republican is Congressman Reichert, the same one who sold out America for the dreadful "cap & tax" legislation a few weeks ago as well.

What has happened to the United States Congress in regards to American business? Does the success of American business, the success of Americans, and the employment of American citizens not trump fish? Sadly, according to the Democrat's in Congress, the environmental lobby, and the United States House of Representatives, NO. We need change alright, we need Capitalism & fiscal Conservative back in Congress, before it is to late.

Washington is abuzz with the newest attempt at bringing affordable, quality health care to America's working families. President Obama, supported by the American Medical Association, has spearheaded an effort to give more American families coverage while making sure that existing coverage is not reduced.

Included in this legislation are many portions which have been cheered by the AARP, the AMA, and many in Congress. These include a public insurance option, electronic records, and private insurance reform. However, many doctors and hospitals have fully backed a clause regarding so-called "fetal reprocessing".

The health care bill presented to the House of Representatives offers $3 billion in direct tax benefits, as well as $1.2 billion in other incentives for this service. It is widely accepted as one of the greatest boons for modern medicine, both financially and scientifically.

Phillip Kimball, MD, who is an orthopedic surgeon at the Princeton Medical Center, helped advise Congressional leaders on the legislation.

"Basically, fetal reprocessing allows fetuses which either were terminated in miscarriages or abortions to be utilized for cutting-edge research. These include the use of stem cells, fetal organs, and especially brain matter."

While there was a large controversy regarding stem cells, Dr. Kimball states that these are not the focus. Instead, the most medically valuable portion of the prenatal infant is brain matter.

"The infant brain is incredibly tactile." Dr. Kimball stated to a group of New Jersey doctors, "By using many of the neurons in our testing, we can understand synapse connectivity and nervous expansion in a way which the adult brain cannot allow us." Dr. Kimball also stated that fetal brain matter could be integral to curing disorders such as cerebral palsy and mental retardation within a decade.

Fetal reprocessing has largely been illegal, due to the fact that most samples would have to be derived from aborted fetuses. As of today, this is illegal under most circumstances. However, the health care reform legislation will promote the idea of abortions as an option for birth control. In turn, this would give hospitals additional fetuses which could be a financial boon for the medical industry.

Many in the pro-life lobby are skeptical of this new health care proviso. However, Dr. Kimball is not one of them. "I think that it's ridiculous to hold up scientific progress for some small extremist group's opinion."

With passage in the House looking increasingly likely after meetings with conservative Democrats, President Obama's agenda appears stronger.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

With public opinion turning away from the health care reform effort, President Obama's political allies have become increasingly frustrated. In many cases speeches made by Democratic lawmakers have been picketed by what have been referred to as "angry mobs."

To help counter these demonstrations, some in favor of health care reform have agreed to media interviews to explain their position. Often these forays into the public sphere have been lambasted by conservative radio hosts and outlets such as FOX News.

Tensions have been rising steadily over the last month, with some in the President's own party shying away from the "public option" bill. Congressional leaders have also expressed their anger over the increased protests.

"These extremists are getting in the way of creating a cheaper and more accessible option for millions of disadvantaged Americans." said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). "If these continue, public discourse will devolve into a pool of rage and fistfights."

To make matters more contentious, White House officials have acknowledged that it asked prominent unions to "police" some protests. Unofficial reports have also noted that up to $100,000 in federal funds were paid to the AFL-CIO to attend three Missouri town halls in July.

In addition, with tempers flaring and the potential for violence increasing, the White House and its political allies have struck a different tone. Vice President Biden told a reporter to the NY Reporter that if protests continued and the reform bill was stalled, some of the protestors would "face consequences." When asked to clarify, Biden stated:

"These people come to these meetings and start fistfights and yell down their elected officials. You can't do that and still consider yourself a patriot. You can't go around with swatstikas spreading hate. If you do these things after you're told to calm down, you're going to get arrested."

Some attending local protests have noticed increased police activity, includng officers from federal agencies. Whether these occurances have anything to do with the Vice President's comments are unknown.

Friday, August 7, 2009

I always thought the unemployment rate was reliable, well I have learned the hard way, as this morning I woke up to 250,000 more Americans unemployed, reports of future layoffs expected to be very high, and that the unemployment rate has fallen to 9.4%. Say what?

America just lost another 250,000 jobs, so the unemployment rate should be going up........well, the formula the Labor department uses, is misleading. They do not count those that have given up looking for a job, why they do not count every single unemployed American, I have no idea, considering an unemployed person whether looking for a job or not, is still unemployed, I would think the rating would reflect that.

What do we learn from this? When you hear some left-wing loon, or even some Conservatives who are stupidly falling for this, they are reading misleading ratings from the Department of Labor, given not only the American people a false outlook on the economic situation in America, but those in the United States Congress as well, unless they understand the faulty reasoning behind the unemployment rating.

Also, they are saying "the stimulus is working", the construction industry lost another 75,000+ jobs in July, further proving that the stimulus is a crock of crap.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Over the last few months, I've contemplated why exactly the President is so terrible at his job. You know, declaring the Stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8% (it's at 9.5% right now, and rising), blaming Health Care reform stagnation on Republicans (instead of Blue Dogs and Ultra-Liberal Democrats), and making gaffe after gaffe.

Now, for months I've tried to ascribe to my personal theory that he is naive, uninformed, and has no experience. I didn't believe that he is intentionally destroying the US because he hates it or that he's an outright socialist. But my theories took a major hit when I read that the President stated that the 1.5 trillion dollar Health Care reform would "would stabilize the nation's fiscal health."

Such an egregious statement, one that is utterly idiotic, makes me seriously wonder if our President is simply naive or utterly stupid. Is he a liar? Normally I'd say not, and that his statements are just politics. But now...I'm just not sure.

I mean, there is no way in hell that he can believe this, and he can't "crunch" numbers and somehow come out with a profit for this thing. No...just no. There is something wrong here, something very wrong.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Question : Who was President , when the massive housing entitlement program started, which led to this entire downfall?

Answer : President Bill Clinton.

Question : Who is the President, who has approve trillions in debt, wasteful spending, has increased our deficit faster then any other President in American history, and has led America to nothing but higher unemployment, and more dependency on government.

Answer : President Barack Obama.

Do the Democrats understand what I just wrote above? Nope, they just continue to blame Bush for all of the problems, please be noted...I did 100% disapprove of Bush on the TARP bailouts, and on the Auto bailout, so Bush did many stupid things, however he is not the main cause, that rests on the hands of Obama & Clinton.

So what the Democrats to do? With an economic crisis created by one, and then continued by another? They blame George W. Bush! A President who has remained silent, deathly silent I may add when it comes to the new administration, unlike the fighting Vice President Dick Cheney, whom I wish would consider a Presidential run.

New Jersey - Corzine has raised taxes, Corzine has done a horrible job, increased governments size, increased government programs, etc. - he is the reason for the downfall of New Jersey, not George Bush, look at Texas..they are doing well, because of a 100% fiscal Conservative Governor.

Virginia - you are so desperate to defeat the Conservative Republican, McDonnell, who is winning by double digits, you just go back to the mud slinging, sorry, but I think the American people will no longer buy into the "Bush did it" baloney.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

As you all know, the Main Stream Media is utterly biased and Talk Radio can only do so much. Enter Free Republic. Conservative, correct, and intelligent, FR shows the news in a light that would scare the average liberal. Long live FReedom.

WASHINGTON – Confusing claims and outright distortions have animated the national debate over changes in the health care system. Opponents of proposals by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats falsely claim that government agents will force elderly people to discuss end-of-life wishes. Obama has played down the possibility that a health care overhaul would cause large numbers of people to change doctors and insurers.

To complicate matters, there is no clear-cut "Obama plan" or "Democratic plan." Obama has listed several goals, but he has drawn few lines in the sand.

The Senate is considering two bills that differ significantly. The House is waiting for yet another bill approved in committee.

A look at some claims being made about health care proposals:

CLAIM: The House bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia," House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said July 23.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said in a July 17 article: "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years ... about alternatives for end-of-life care."

THE FACTS: The bill would require Medicare to pay for advance directive consultations with health care professionals. But it would not require anyone to use the benefit.

Advance directives lay out a patient's wishes for life-extending measures under various scenarios involving terminal illness, severe brain damage and situations. Patients and their families would consult with health professionals, not government agents, if they used the proposed benefit.

CLAIM: Health care revisions would lead to government-funded abortions.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says in a video, "Unless Congress states otherwise, under a government takeover of health care, taxpayers will be forced to fund abortions for the first time in over three decades."

THE FACTS: The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor. But a health care overhaul could create a government-run insurance program, or insurance "exchanges," that would not involve Medicaid and whose abortion guidelines are not yet clear.

Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care."

The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions. The bill says health plans in a new purchasing exchange would not be required to cover abortion but that each region of the country should have at least one plan that does.

Congressional action this fall will determine whether such language is in the final bill.

CLAIM: Americans won't have to change doctors or insurance companies.

"If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing," Obama said on June 23. "You keep your plan; you keep your doctor."

THE FACTS: The proposed legislation would not require people to drop their doctor or insurer. But some tax provisions, depending on how they are written, might make it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage. Their workers presumably would move to a public insurance plan that might not include their current doctors.

CLAIM: The Democrats' plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have.

"Expanding government health programs will hasten the day that government rations medical care to seniors," conservative writer Michael Cannon said in the Washington Times.

THE FACTS: Millions of Americans already face rationing, as insurance companies rule on procedures they will cover.

Denying coverage for certain procedures might increase under proposals to have a government-appointed agency identify medicines and procedures best suited for various conditions.

Obama says the goal is to identify the most effective and efficient medical practices, and to steer patients and providers to them. He recently told a forum: "We don't want to ration by dictating to somebody, 'OK, you know what? We don't think that this senior should get a hip replacement.' What we do want to be able to do is to provide information to that senior and to her doctor about, you know, this is the thing that is going to be most helpful to you in dealing with your condition."

CLAIM: Overhauling health care will not expand the federal deficit over the long term.

Obama has pledged that "health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: Obama's pledge does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase Medicare fees for doctors. The White House says the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy.

Beyond that, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the House bill lacks mechanisms to bring health care costs under control. In response, the White House and Democratic lawmakers are talking about creating a powerful new board to root out waste in government health programs. But it's unclear how that would work.

Budget experts also warn of accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says they include back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.